Re: [for-next-3.11][PATCH 0/8] ftrace/tracing: Event file fixes andftrace function hash fixes

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 13:47 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Using the i_private and event_mutex
> > to verify that the event still exists to solve the race.
> 
> To remind, we also need the "debugfs: debugfs_remove_recursive() must
> not rely on list_empty(d_subdirs)" patch, otherwise we still have the
> problems with the opened files.

Do these patches depend on that patch? Should I rebase to have that
patch first?

-- Steve

> 
> Just in case, we need this fix even if .open() does trace_array_get()
> or tracing_open_generic_file() (removed by recent changes), rmdir can
> be called before we increment the counter and the deleted dentry breaks
> debugfs_remove_recursive().
> 
> But after the recent changes this fix becomes more important. An opened
> file confuses debugfs_remove_recursive() and after that you can't create
> another probe.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/